Share this:

As the two Democratic presidential wannabes were busy beating each other up last week, GOP presumptive nominee John McCain cited a clear issue on which he differs from bothBarack Obama and Hillary Clinton: judgeships.

McCain would tap judges who don’t try to legislate from the bench.

He’s got the right approach.

“Sens. Obama and Clinton don’t seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives,” McCain said.

He understands the constitutional logic of the separate branches of government and of limiting the powers of each: Legislators make laws; judges try them.

When activists in the judicial branch issue rulings that effectively go beyond existing law – as they often do – they not only encroach on lawmakers’ powers, but also subvert the democratic process.

“Often, political causes are brought before the courts that could not succeed by democratic means,” he said, “and some federal judges are eager to oblige.”

McCain also took the two Dems to task for joining in their party’s effort to delay approval of more than 30 federal judicial nominations solely for reasons of ideology and politics.

McCain, by contrast, worked with a bipartisan group of senators – “The Gang of 14” – to forge a compromise. The deal allowed President Bush to seat two judges of his choosing, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, on the Supreme Court, while blocking a GOP attempt to ban Senate filibusters for federal judges.

McCain vows to tap “accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law and a proven commitment to judicial restraint.”

That’s certainly in keeping with a president’s constitutional obligation.